51ÁÔÆæ

Le TANU a not¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif avait rendu l'ordonnance contest¨¦e faisant droit ¨¤ la demande de prorogation du d¨¦lai de d¨¦p?t de la requ¨ºte sans que la partie l¨¦s¨¦e ait ¨¦t¨¦ entendue et sans ¨ºtre habilit¨¦ ¨¤ le faire. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ne s'¨¦tait pas techniquement conform¨¦ ¨¤ ses propres instructions pratiques en rendant l'ordonnance et qu'il avait peut-¨ºtre strictement viol¨¦ les principes de justice naturelle et de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re en ne donnant pas au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral un pr¨¦avis suffisant de la requ¨ºte et la...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en demandant ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer le r¨¦sultat n¨¦gatif de la proc¨¦dure de reclassement, l'agent n'avait pas respect¨¦ les r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure. Il aurait d? faire appel de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, comme le pr¨¦voient les sections 5 et 6 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/1998/9 (Syst¨¨me de classement des postes). La demande de l'agent n'¨¦tant pas recevable, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas examiner ses observations et ses preuves suppl¨¦mentaires concernant le fond de l'affaire. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande d'indemnisation de l'agent ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de sa d¨¦cision de...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'une lecture objective de la demande de r¨¦vision de la d¨¦cision pr¨¦sent¨¦e par l'agent montrait clairement qu'elle n'avait contest¨¦ que le deuxi¨¨me et non le premier bl?me, tous deux prononc¨¦s pour ne pas avoir ex¨¦cut¨¦ les t?ches d'enseignement qui lui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ confi¨¦es. Le TANU a consid¨¦r¨¦ que les r¨¦f¨¦rences au fonctionnaire ayant ¨¦mis le bl?me, ¨¤ sa date et ¨¤ la mesure corrective demand¨¦e ¨¦taient indiqu¨¦es dans la demande. Le TANU a donc estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait commis aucune erreur de fait ou de droit en consid¨¦rant que l'agent n'avait pas introduit de...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'arr¨ºt contest¨¦ ¨¦taient suffisamment clairs et non ambigus pour ¨ºtre ex¨¦cutoires et que, par cons¨¦quent, la requ¨ºte de l'ancien agent n'¨¦tait pas recevable. En particulier, le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune ambigu?t¨¦ quant ¨¤ la justesse des motifs et ¨¤ la nature de la mesure disciplinaire prise par l'administration ¨¤ l'encontre de l'ancien agent.

De m¨ºme, le TANU a estim¨¦ que le raisonnement concernant le renvoi de l'affaire au Haut Commissaire en vue d'une ¨¦ventuelle action visant ¨¤ faire respecter l'obligation de rendre des comptes ¨¦tait clair...

Le TANU a observ¨¦ que deux ¨¦changes de courriels entre Mme Nimusiima et un ancien membre du personnel du HCR (AM) ¨¦taient la seule preuve documentaire offerte pour ¨¦tablir la culpabilit¨¦ de Mme Nimusiima dans l'¨¦mission d'une lettre de r¨¦installation frauduleuse en ¨¦change d'un pot-de-vin.

L'UNDT avait conclu que ces ¨¦changes de courriels montraient que Mme Nimusiima avait agi de concert avec AM, mais qu'ils ¨¦taient n¨¦anmoins "¨¦quivoques" (peu clairs/vagues), "purement circonstanciels" et ne prouvaient pas avec une forte probabilit¨¦ qu'AM avait envoy¨¦ la lettre de r¨¦installation frauduleuse...

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel, estimant qu'il ¨¦tait ¨¦vident, ¨¤ la lecture du m¨¦moire d'appel, que M. Hammad ne soutenait pas que le tribunal de l'UNRWA avait commis une erreur de fait ou de droit. Il s'est content¨¦ de pr¨¦senter les m¨ºmes arguments que ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s dans sa demande de r¨¦vision devant le tribunal de l'UNRWA et n'a pas d¨¦montr¨¦ en quoi le tribunal de l'UNRWA avait commis une erreur.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA avait correctement identifi¨¦ plusieurs irr¨¦gularit¨¦s de proc¨¦dure dans la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Conform¨¦ment au paragraphe 9 de l'instruction technique 02/2016 du D¨¦partement des services de contr?le interne (DIOS) sur la politique d'enqu¨ºte de l'UNRWA (DTI 02/2016), l'enqu¨ºte aurait d? ¨ºtre autoris¨¦e dans les 10 jours suivant le rapport du comit¨¦ d'accueil ; or, en l'esp¨¨ce, il a fallu attendre 11 mois pour obtenir l'autorisation d'enqu¨ºter. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que ce d¨¦lai ¨¦tait si excessif qu'il aurait ¨¦t¨¦ p¨¦nible pour une personne moyenne.

Analysant les...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly identified several procedural irregularities in the contested decision. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) Technical Instruction 02/2016 on UNRWA¡¯s Investigation Policy (DTI 02/2016), the investigation should have been authorized within 10 days of the Intake Committee¡¯s report; yet here, the authorization to investigate took 11 months to be given. The UNAT found that this delay was so excessive that it would distress an average person.

Analyzing the evidence presented by the staff member regarding the...

The UNAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former UNHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The UNDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the UNRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the UNRWA DT erred.

The UNAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the UNAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the UNAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The UNAT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.

The UNAT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates¡¯ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...

The UNAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the UNAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The UNAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The UNAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The UNAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The UNAT therefore held that the UNRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The UNAT also held that the UNDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The UNAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The UNAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The UNAT observed, however, that the UNDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement jug¨¦ que la demande de M. Qasem devant l'UNDT contestant la d¨¦cision de le placer en cong¨¦ administratif avec traitement avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e hors d¨¦lai et n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable ratione temporis. En outre, sa demande contestant la d¨¦cision de mener diverses enqu¨ºtes ¨¤ son sujet n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae en l'absence d'une demande de r¨¦vision de la d¨¦cision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the UNDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison de consid¨¦rer qu¡¯il existait clairement des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve suffisants pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion de l¡¯Administration selon laquelle les performances du fonctionnaire ne r¨¦pondaient que partiellement aux attentes et que cette pr¨¦occupation lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e. Bien que la confirmation de la notation par le Comit¨¦ de r¨¦futation et la pr¨¦paration d'une deuxi¨¨me ¨¦valuation des performances ¨¤ court terme aient eu lieu apr¨¨s le non-renouvellement, l'UNAT a conclu que ces examens confirmaient n¨¦anmoins que l'¨¦valuation informelle pr¨¦alable de...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis plusieurs erreurs de droit et de fait, conduisant ¨¤ un r¨¦sultat manifestement d¨¦raisonnable.

En particulier, l¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur en refusant de tenir une audition des preuves que M. Nkoyock cherchait ¨¤ appeler pour ¨¦tablir sa d¨¦fense face aux all¨¦gations port¨¦es contre lui et pour mettre en accusation les t¨¦moins du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement commis une erreur en ne parvenant pas ¨¤ tirer ses propres conclusions sur les faits contest¨¦s et en s¡¯appuyant de mani¨¨re excessive sur les conclusions de l¡¯enqu¨ºte...